Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 19, 2018 11:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 07, 2013 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-07/edison-plans-to-permanently-close-san-onofre-nuclear-reactor-1

Well, lets just hope that Nat Gas thing works out as expected, because that's all we've got out West. Diablo Canyon is now officially the last commercial nuclear power plant in California. I've been writing my Congressman (Issa) to push for repurposing the SanO land for waste consuming reactor demonstrations, but have never heard back. He is very busy playing political gotcha apparently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 07, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Seems there are not enough rational folk out CA way to counter-balance the fugheads. Too bad.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Last edited by KitemanSA on Jun 11, 2013 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 10, 2013 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 379
Yeah, so now a large part of the load is going to be taken up by burning natural gas in Huntington beach. Total emissions into the biosphere will increase roughly a millionfold. Radioactivity releases will be several hundredfold more because of the Radon content of natural gas. There may also be some sulfur emissions; I don't know how much sulfur dioxide is in the commercial-quality natural gas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 10, 2013 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
rgvandewalker wrote:
Yeah, so now a large part of the load is going to be taken up by burning natural gas in Huntington beach. Total emissions into the biosphere will increase roughly a millionfold. Radioactivity releases will be several hundredfold more because of the Radon content of natural gas. There may also be some sulfur emissions; I don't know how much sulfur dioxide is in the commercial-quality natural gas.


Radon has a half-life of 4 days so once the gas is removed from the ground the radioactivity due to radon decreases pretty rapidly. Perhaps there is more radioactivity near the well head due to leaking gas but I'm not sure there is any left by the time it gets to Long Beach. Any idea how long the gas takes to get to Long Beach?
If you do have any radon that disperses in the atmosphere downstream from it is Po-210 which is an alpha emitter with a 180 day half-life so not good if you ingest that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 11, 2013 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
They're shutting down a perfectly good, multi billion dollar powerplant because of a minor boiler leak. These happen all the time in coal plants, and are simply repaired. Imagine how suffocating the regulatory environment must be if you're not allowed to deal with a simple boiler leak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 11, 2013 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
They're shutting down a perfectly good, multi billion dollar powerplant because of a minor boiler leak. These happen all the time in coal plants, and are simply repaired. Imagine how suffocating the regulatory environment must be if you're not allowed to deal with a simple boiler leak.
Please, I hate to defend the NRC, but really, it was not "just a boiler leak". It was an indicator that if they had continued the way they were, there would have been ever increasing boiler leakage. AFAIK, the fatigue that caused the crack was there in all (or at least many of) the HEX elements.
However, it certainly would have been reasonable to allow them to run the plant at a non-vibratory rate with monitoring.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 11, 2013 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 494
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
a billion dollars is a billion dolllars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 12, 2013 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5045
KitemanSA wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
They're shutting down a perfectly good, multi billion dollar powerplant because of a minor boiler leak. These happen all the time in coal plants, and are simply repaired. Imagine how suffocating the regulatory environment must be if you're not allowed to deal with a simple boiler leak.
Please, I hate to defend the NRC, but really, it was not "just a boiler leak". It was an indicator that if they had continued the way they were, there would have been ever increasing boiler leakage. AFAIK, the fatigue that caused the crack was there in all (or at least many of) the HEX elements.
However, it certainly would have been reasonable to allow them to run the plant at a non-vibratory rate with monitoring.


We are not talking rocket science here. Failures after maintenance happen all the time, it is called infant mortality in the maintenance world. I see this happening all the time. Bad installation, wrong materials, wrong chemistry control/entering of foreign materials during maintenance... these things happen. When they do, figure out what's going on, correct the mistake (install new parts), and document it in a working procedure so that it won't happen next time. Then start up the plant again. This is how it works in every industry, except nuclear. It's why we're still stuck with old nuclear powerplants, why we can't innovate, why no new things can be tried. We're stuck on stupid, holding ourselves hostage for ransom no-one can afford to pay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 12, 2013 10:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Except it was a brand new, increased capacity unit that exhibited vibratory issues before failure. The root cause analysis showed the elements were insufficiently supported FOR THE MAXIMUM FLOW. Lower flow (~70 capacity, IIRC) eliminated the vibration.

It was wise that they didn't allow 100% power. It was foolish not to allow 70% with monitoring. JMHO.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 14, 2013 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 05, 2013 5:24 am
Posts: 108
The fact that we have 40-50 year old plants is a testament to both the original quality and the ability to successfully perform maintenance and component replacement over many plants. The shutdown was soley a regulatory/political artifact. Having said that Mitsubishi or thei insurance should also be responsible for replacement costs and lost revenues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 14, 2013 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
Ed P wrote:
The fact that we have 40-50 year old plants is a testament to both the original quality and the ability to successfully perform maintenance and component replacement over many plants. The shutdown was soley a regulatory/political artifact. Having said that Mitsubishi or thei insurance should also be responsible for replacement costs and lost revenues.

I would guess another factor is SoCal Ed decision is the pending forced installation of cooling towers. California fussed over the fish larvae killed when using ocean water cooling (and I bet there is increased fish larvae population near the warmer water outlets but that this factor was ignored). The forecast I saw was a cost of $5B and I would guess San Onofre would be half that cost. Throw in the forced purchase of wind/solar which probably reduces the value of electricity produced during heavy winds and the economics get weird. Notice this is all a matter of political choices.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 15, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Meanwhile, over in Florida, the state has required at least one PP to install auxiliary heaters to keep the manatees warm during overhaul. ;)

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 15, 2013 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Lars wrote:
I would guess another factor is SoCal Ed decision is the pending forced installation of cooling towers. California fussed over the fish larvae killed when using ocean water cooling (and I bet there is increased fish larvae population near the warmer water outlets but that this factor was ignored). The forecast I saw was a cost of $5B and I would guess San Onofre would be half that cost.
Wouldn't an arced fountain of outflow into the ocean accomplish the same thing? Atomize it as much as needed to achieve the desired cooling.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 15, 2013 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3063
KitemanSA wrote:
Lars wrote:
I would guess another factor is SoCal Ed decision is the pending forced installation of cooling towers. California fussed over the fish larvae killed when using ocean water cooling (and I bet there is increased fish larvae population near the warmer water outlets but that this factor was ignored). The forecast I saw was a cost of $5B and I would guess San Onofre would be half that cost.
Wouldn't an arced fountain of outflow into the ocean accomplish the same thing? Atomize it as much as needed to achieve the desired cooling.

The issue really was killing fish larvae with the pumps so an arced fountain won't change that. In reality of course, the point is to find anything possible to drive up the cost of nuclear power. In New York they tried to force the nuclear power plants to add tower coolers but did not make the same demands of the coal power plant. Both used river water for cooling (where heating the water is honestly an issue).

Also, I would imagine atomizing ocean water would make for a pretty tough maintenance problem with corrosion and salt deposits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 16, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Lars wrote:
The issue really was killing fish larvae with the pumps so an arced fountain won't change that.
So they are sucking in and killing recently hatched eggs? Were the eggs there because of the warmer water?

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group